Podcasts about fair admissions inc

In June the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court observers have put forth different analyses […]

In June the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? How will hiring in the public and private sectors change? What about government initiatives and the public procurement process?As employers adjust their programs and new litigation progresses through the courts, lawyers are working to advise their clients for whatever may come. Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding the greater legal landscape after SFFA.

This year the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Court’s ruling elevates a colorblind reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the college admissions context, the decision makes unconstitutional certain policies that would favor one applicant over another on the basis of that applicant’s race. College admissions offices across the country will have to alter the policies they’ve used for decades. How will they adapt? Will facially race-neutral policies aiming to achieve a desired racial balance for accepted classes be created as a proxy? Will colleges attempt to sidestep the ruling or find legally permissible means of achieving their objectives? If so, how will the courts respond?Some observers argue that the decision in SFFA should be expected to affect diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts outside of college admissions. Will public and private employers have to change their hiring practices? Will competitive K-12 schools adjust their admissions policies? What about scholarships? Government contracting? How far-reaching will the Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment ultimately be?This panel will provide a comprehensive review of SFFA and explore its consequences.Featuring:Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law SchoolHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Randall L. Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolMr. Devon Westhill, President & General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Hon. Stephen A. Vaden, United States Court of International TradeOverflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two months later, The […]

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Two months later, The U.S. Departments of Justice and Education issued a joint guidance document addressing the decision.Court observers have put forth different analyses concerning how far-reaching this decision may be. Will corporate diversity programs be stopped? What about government initiatives? The jury is still out, but one thing will certainly change – college admissions.How will college admissions offices across the country change their policies? What should high school students know about the changing landscape? What methods will be employed in pursuit of racial diversity? Please join us as an expert panel addresses these questions and more in pursuit of understanding college admissions after SFFA.

Scholars and advocates discuss Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Dean Risa Goluboff gave opening remarks. The event was sponsored by the American Constitution Society, the Black Law Students Association and the Center for the Study of Race and Law. (University of Virginia School of Law, Sept. 19, 2023)

Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Hello All! Welcome to this new episode of Coffee Date with the Constitution. In this episode, we will be talking about a recent SCOTUS case that has rocked the nation. The case Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College ended decades-long precedent, deeming affirmative action as unconstitutional and a violation of students' civil rights. This essentially means that universities can no longer use race as a factor in admissions processes. Today, I break down a bit of the oral arguments in this case, central points made by both the petitioners and respondents, and how schools and the country are attempting to move forward post-affirmative action.

I apologize for the delay in posting this final segment of this opinion; I'm in the middle of a move. Thanks for your patience!  Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

On Thursday, June 29th, The Supreme Court ruled in two cases brought by “Students for Fair Admissions Inc.” In a 6-3 ruling the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions. Newt talks with the author of “When Race Trumps Merit”, Heather Mac Donald. She is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and a New York Times bestselling author.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023). Next episode, I'll be reading the final 19 pages. Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

In this episode, we discuss the recent US Supreme Court ruling in the Students for Fair Admissions Inc.'s lawsuits against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, which challenged the constitutionality of their race conscious admission policies. We'll consider the potential implications across multiple settings, from university admissions policies, to workplace and other DEI programs. Bill Rhodes, a Partner in Ballard Spahr's Public Finance Group and Leader of the firm's Education Industry Team, hosts the discussion. Bill is joined by Brian Pedrow, a Partner in our Labor and Employment Group, and Co-Leader of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Counseling Team; Dee Spagnuolo, a Partner in our White Collar Defense and Internal Investigations Group, and Co-Leader of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Counseling Team; and Elizabeth Wingfield, an Associate in our Litigation Department.

Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

In this special episode of Legally Bond, Kim talks with Bond labor and employment and higher education attorney Peter Jones about the recent Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, which reverses a long line of decisions on whether race can be a deciding factor in admissions for higher education.

In this episode, Josh and Adi cover the recent Supreme Court term, and discuss the major cases heard by the court and the implications of their decisions, including the decisions on Affirmative Action, Student loan fogriveness, the alleged neutrality of the court, as well as a discussion on the recent Twitter limit debacle and the state of Social Media. Follow Josh at @JoshuaKoss17, and check out the Monster Pop podcast at @MonsterPopPod  ⁠linktr.ee/MonsterPop⁠ Follow us on: Twitter - @PodGreenhouse  Email us at: greenhousegaslightingpod@gmail.com  https://linktr.ee/greenhousegaslighting Further Reading: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time/ Articles and Cases Discussed: The Court rejected the “Independent State Legislature” theory, one of the various legal mechanisms Trump pursued to remain in power after losing in 2020, in Moore v. Harper (6-3) https://www.npr.org/2023/06/27/1181152636/independent-state-legislature-theory-supreme-court-decision  Screwed over the Navajo Nation reserve, saying the US had no obligations to provide water under their treaty with the reservation in Arizona v. Navajo Nation (5-4) Ended race-based affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (6-3)  Expanded business discrimination of LGBTQIA+ individuals in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (6-3) Case was brought forth on bogus claims and should have lacked standing, the website to design wedding websites did not yet exist nor did the “gay man” who supposedly requested the website https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court  Rejection of Biden's student loan forgiveness plan in Biden v. Nebraska https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/biden-v-nebraska-2/  SCOTUS AGAIN expanded “standing” standards which conflicted with decisions earlier in the term which concluded that State's lacked legal standing to protect private actors within their territory.  Expanding the bench - Biden has rejected this as harmfully “politicizing the Court”  https://www.commondreams.org/news/biden-supreme-court-politicize “I think if we start the process of trying to expand the court, we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that's not healthy

Joe Selvaggi speaks with Thomas Berry, research fellow at Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies; they explore the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, how it mostly bars race as a factor in determining who gets admitted to […]

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The opinion jointly addressed the issues presented in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. The question before the Court was whether the race-conscious admissions systems used by […]

Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023   Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions.  

Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)   Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions.  

Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.    

On Thursday, June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The opinion jointly addressed the issues presented in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. University of North Carolina. The question before the Court was whether the race-conscious admissions systems used by Harvard and UNC violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Harvard and UNC's admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court; Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions; Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed dissenting opinions. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of SFFA v. Harvard. Please join us as Curt Levey discusses the decision.

Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)   Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions.  

Mukherjee is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute and a Ph.D. student in American politics at Boston College, where her dissertation will focus on affirmative action. Razib asks Mukherjee to discuss the origin of affirmative action as it is practiced in the US today, starting with the Bakke decision in 1978, and then moving on to Grutter vs. Bollinger in 2003. She then moves to the details of the current cases, in particular Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, where the plaintiffs assert that Harvard University discriminates against Asian Americans in admissions, and engages in “racial balancing.” Razib and Mukherjee then explore the implications of the decision. Razib wonders about the implication for Harvard in particular, which is, to great extent, the finishing school of the American ruling class. Is Harvard's mission sustainable if 40% of the student body is Asian American? Mukherjee points out that these demographic trends, the rise of Asian Americans proportionally and the decline of historically represented groups, have been occurring despite affirmative action, for example, the decline of Jewish Americans in the Ivy League over the last generation. Additionally, both Razib and Mukherjee agree universities are certain to engage in both evasion and massive resistance to the ruling. Mukherjee argues that the current moves against standardized testing anticipate the program of evasion that we can expect in the future, where holistic admissions can allow the administrators' preferences to continue.

The panel is sponsored by our Civil Rights practice group and will focus on the issues in, and potential outcome of, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. One of the most closely anticipated cases of the coming Supreme Court term involves a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. This panel will examine the issues raised by those cases, the possible outcomes, and their likely impact on the future of higher education and beyond. Will these cases mark the end of race-as-a-factor in holistic admissions practices? If so, will universities comply with the Court’s decision, or will they evade it? And what will be the ramifications in other sectors, such as the workplace? Is a color-blind society possible in our time?Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Former Civil Rights Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryProf. Eric Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of LawModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina).In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.Tune in to hear our experts break down the oral argument.Featuring:Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton SchoolDevon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College.In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Our experts broke down the oral argument on the same day, October 31, 2022. Featuring:Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton SchoolDevon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice

On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. In perhaps the most anticipated case of this term, the court considers a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. […]

Argument about whether Race should be considered in admissions to selective state and private universities. The second argument, was about Harvard University including race in admissions decisions, to deal with old discrimination that occurred generations ago. Because now the policy has added new kinds of discrimination EXCLUDING people based on their race or ethnic group, particularly those of Asian extraction who are being excluded.Thank you for reading Battle of the Titans - Good Vs Evil, Christianity, Education. This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe

QUESTION PRESENTED:(1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/

The Supreme Court returns October 3 for its 2022-2023 Term, and the justices will hear cases on a number of important issues: affirmative action, race, elections, administrative law, immigration, and more.For instance, in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, the Court will determine whether institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions. In Moore v. Harper, the Court will determine if state legislatures have the authority from the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts. In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court will establish if the 9th Circuit set forth the proper test to determine whether wetlands are "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. In United States v. Texas, the Court will decide if the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law.Please join us for a lively discussion with two distinguished Supreme Court litigators, and former Solicitors General, about what could potentially unfold in the next Supreme Court term. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court returns October 3 for its 2022-2023 Term, and the justices will hear cases on a number of important issues: affirmative action, race, elections, administrative law, immigration, and more. For instance, in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, the […]

Professor Harold J. Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law previews some of the blockbuster cases set to be heard by the United States Supreme Court during the 2022 term, which begins on October 3rd.  The preview covers cases on affirmative action, voting rights (including the so-called independent state legislature doctrine), and the First Amendment. Professor Krent is the former dean of the Chicago-Kent College of Law, where he teaches in the areas of constitutional law, appellate courts, legislation, and administrative law.  He has authored dozens of articles on these and other topics.  His book, Presidential Powers, is a comprehensive examination of the president's role as defined by the U.S. Constitution and judicial and historical precedents.During the episode, Robert refers to a Supreme Court summary by Georgetown Law. Cases covered:·        303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, No. 21-476 (First Amendment (speech)).·        Merrill v. Milligan, No. 21-1086 (Argument date: 10/4/2022) (voting rights).·        Moore v. Harper, No. 21-1271 (voting rights; independent state legislature doctrine).·        Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 (Argument date: 10/31/2022) (affirmative action).·        Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, No. 21-707 (Argument date: 10/31/2022) (affirmative action). ·        U.S. v. Texas, No. 22-58 (prosecutorial discretion; administrative law).

Norm opens the first episode of the week with a monologue reflecting on the fifteen additional mass shootings that have occurred in the United States in the short days since the Uvaldi, Texas, elementary school shooting, and makes a call for congressional term limits.  He is then joined by Michael Boyer, the editor and producer of Law and Legitimacy, for a multi-varied discussion beginning with the forthcoming SCOTUS decisions regarding affirmative action.  Michael gives an overview of the two companion cases (Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al.; and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College) and the legal issues presented for the Court's adjudication.  Norm and Mike also discuss privacy, the second amendment, student loan debt and potential relief, and the Depp-Heard trial.  Like, share, and subscribe. Norm is live every weekday at 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC600 AM/107.3 FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter. 

Norm opens the first episode of the week with a monologue reflecting on the fifteen additional mass shootings that have occurred in the United States in the short days since the Uvaldi, Texas, elementary school shooting, and makes a call for congressional term limits.  He is then joined by Michael Boyer, the editor and producer of Law and Legitimacy, for a multi-varied discussion beginning with the forthcoming SCOTUS decisions regarding affirmative action.  Michael gives an overview of the two companion cases (Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al.; and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College) and the legal issues presented for the Court's adjudication.  Norm and Mike also discuss privacy, the second amendment, student loan debt and potential relief, and the Depp-Heard trial.  Like, share, and subscribe. Norm is live every weekday at 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC600 AM/107.3 FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter. 

On today's podcast, David and Sarah celebrate 200 episodes with a discussion of two key college admissions cases the Supreme Court took up. Plus, they preview Sarah Palin's defamation trial, and look at a circuit court judge's unusual opinion. Show Notes:-Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College-CNN: “Why the Sarah Palin v. New York Times trial will be an 'excruciating experience' for the paper”-Judge VanDyke's Ninth Circuit opinion